Latest news with #AlanM.Garber
Time of India
a day ago
- Politics
- Time of India
What's really behind Harvard's clash with the US government over federal funds?
Harvard challenges US funding cuts in $3 billion legal battle with Trump administration Harvard University is currently embroiled in a legal battle with the US government over the freezing of nearly $3 billion in federal funding. The dispute centers on allegations made by the Trump administration and the University's response through a federal lawsuit. The courtroom hearing, taking place in Boston's Seaport District, represents a key moment in the case. The proceedings involve oral arguments over whether Harvard can recover federal research funds that were withheld following the administration's imposition of specific conditions tied to hiring, admissions, and oversight. Background of the lawsuit and key issues at stake The legal conflict began in April when the Trump administration sent a letter to Harvard President Alan M. Garber outlining conditions for continued federal support. These included structural reforms to increase 'viewpoint diversity' and audits of various academic units, as reported by The Harvard Crimson. In response, Harvard filed a lawsuit arguing that the administration's demands violated the First Amendment and bypassed formal legal procedures for terminating federal funding. Following the University's legal challenge, the administration halted more than $2 billion in federal grants. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like What Happens When You Massage Baking Soda Into Your Scalp Read More Undo According to The Harvard Crimson, the government escalated further by adding hundreds of millions in additional cuts and warning that Harvard would no longer receive future grants. Federal agencies involved and legal grounds cited Eleven federal agencies are named as defendants, including the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of Defense. Harvard argues that the Trump administration's funding freeze violated the First Amendment by attaching viewpoint-based conditions to funding. The University also cited the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, stating that the government failed to follow the necessary steps before terminating grants. Title VI typically requires a hearing, two formal notices, a 30-day pause, and a failed attempt at voluntary compliance. Harvard contends that none of these steps were followed before the April funding freeze. Key Information Details Amount frozen Over $2.2 billion Total funds at stake Nearly $3 billion Agencies involved 11 (including NSF, DOD, HHS) Legal claims First Amendment, APA, Title VI Judge Allison D. Burroughs Court location Boston, Massachusetts Allegations of antisemitism and racial bias According to the Trump administration, the cuts were prompted by Harvard's alleged failure to adequately address antisemitism and racial discrimination against white students. As reported by The Harvard Crimson, several federal agencies referenced findings from a task force on antisemitism, which described incidents of social isolation and discrimination faced by Jewish and Israeli students. Harvard, however, maintains that it has implemented significant measures, including the formalization of protest policies and expanded academic programs on Jewish and Israeli history. In a court filing cited by The Harvard Crimson, the University said the 2,000-page administrative record submitted by the government failed to show a proper investigation into antisemitism on campus. Ongoing impact and future implications The funding cuts have already disrupted research at Harvard, halting projects in cancer and rare disease treatment and prompting layoffs and hiring freezes. According to The Harvard Crimson, the University requested a summary judgment in early June to resolve the case before the federal government's September 3 deadline for fulfilling financial obligations related to canceled grants. The Trump administration has argued that the case belongs in the Court of Federal Claims, which could delay a final ruling. Meanwhile, discussions between Harvard and the White House have not resulted in a settlement. Judge Allison D. Burroughs is presiding over the case. Though a final ruling is not expected immediately, the court's decision will have significant implications for the University and federal oversight of higher education. TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us here . Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
Yahoo
30-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump admin. accuses Harvard of 'violent violation' of civil rights law: A timeline of the president's war with the university
The Trump administration on Monday accused Harvard of being in 'violent violation' of federal civil rights laws by allegedly failing to stop antisemitism on its campus. In a letter sent to the university, the administration's Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism threatened to cut off 'all federal financial resources' if Harvard doesn't 'institute adequate changes immediately.' The move marked the latest escalation in the ongoing back-and-forth between the president and Harvard, which has come under a barrage of attacks in the months since President Trump returned to office. The administration has already taken away billions of dollars in federal research grants, attempted to revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status and tried to block the school from hosting international students. Since returning to office, Trump has mounted a sweeping campaign to impose his ideological worldview on some of the country's most prominent universities, revoking hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding from schools like Columbia, Princeton and the University of Pennsylvania. But no college has faced the kinds of attacks that Harvard has. Harvard has not responded publicly to Monday's letter, but its president, Alan M. Garber, has previously condemned the administration's 'unlawful and unwarranted' actions. The university has reportedly been negotiating a possible settlement with the administration that would potentially offer the school some relief in exchange for accepting some of the administration's terms for how it should reshape its internal policies. Trump expressed confidence that the two sides could strike a deal in a post on Truth Social earlier this month, writing that Harvard had acted 'extremely appropriately' during their discussions and that the terms of the agreement would be ''mindbogglingly' HISTORIC' if it is finalized. It's unclear how Monday's action by the administration might affect those ongoing negotiations. Here's a timeline of the most aggressive actions the Trump administration has taken against Harvard and how the school has responded. March 31: The administration's Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism announces it will conduct a 'comprehensive review' of nearly $9 billion in contracts and grants that Harvard is slated to receive from the federal government over the school's alleged 'failure to protect students on campus from anti-Semitic discrimination.' April 11: The administration sends Harvard a letter containing a wide-ranging slate of demands, including calling for the school to reform its admissions and hiring policies, end its diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) practices, and grant the government extensive new authority over university operations and education. April 14: Harvard announces that it is refusing to comply with those demands, insisting that it would not 'surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.' The administration responds by revoking $2.2 billion in federal research grants. April 16: DHS launches an investigation into Harvard's international student enrollment, threatens to revoke its ability to host them and demands that the university share comprehensive internal information about each foreign student with the administration. April 17: The Department of Education announces an investigation into donations Harvard has received from foreign sources, accusing the university of failing to accurately disclose the money it gets from overseas. April 19: The Department of Health and Human Services announces a comprehensive civil rights investigation into all activities on Harvard's campus since the Hamas attacks on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, in order to determine whether the school is violating federal antidiscrimination laws. April 20: The administration reportedly moves to revoke an additional $1 billion in health research funding for Harvard and its research partners. April 21: Harvard sues to block the funding freeze. The lawsuit condemns the 'broad attack' on the university and argues that the administration broke the law by violating the school's 'academic independence.' April 25: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announces an investigation into Harvard's hiring practices, accusing the school of discriminating against 'white, Asian, male, or straight employees, applicants, and training program participants.' April 28: The Education Department and HHS announce a joint investigation into allegations of 'race-based discrimination' in the operations of the Harvard Law Review. May 2: Trump says that he is revoking Harvard's tax-exempt status. It's unclear whether this will actually happen, however, because federal law explicitly bars presidents from directing the Internal Revenue Service to review or change any taxpayer's or institution's tax status. May 5: The Education Department declares that Harvard is disqualified from receiving any federal grant funding in the future. May 12: Harvard releases a letter in which it acknowledges 'common ground' it shares with the administration and expresses hope that its 'partnership' with the government can be restored. That same day, the Justice Department launches an investigation into whether Harvard's admissions practices violate antidiscrimination laws. May 13: The administration's joint task force revokes an additional $450 million in grant funding over claims that Harvard has 'repeatedly failed to confront the pervasive race discrimination and anti-Semitic harassment plaguing its campus.' May 19: Another $60 million in medical research grant funding is canceled by HHS. May 22: DHS announces that Harvard can no longer host international students. May 23: Harvard sues to block the order. A federal judge temporarily rules in Harvard's favor, preventing the order from going into effect for at least two weeks to allow a more thorough legal challenge to get underway. May 27: The Trump administration orders all federal agencies to end any remaining contracts — totaling an estimated $100 million — they have with Harvard. May 29: The Trump administration issues a letter pausing its revocation of Harvard's ability to host international students for 30 days. A federal judge extends the deadline on the previous order that temporarily blocks the policy from going into effect. June 23: A federal judge issues an order indefinitely blocking the administration from revoking Harvard's right to host international students. June 26: Harvard reaches an agreement with the University of Toronto that will allow certain Harvard graduate students to attend the Canadian university if the administration succeeds in preventing them from attending college in the United States. June 30: The administration's antisemitism task force formally accuses Harvard of violating civil rights law and threatens to revoke all federal funding over the school's purported failure to protect Jewish students on campus. A letter from the task force accuses the university of being 'deliberately indifferent' to antisemitism in some cases and a 'willful participant' in attacks on Jewish people.
Yahoo
30-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump admin. accuses Harvard of ‘violent violation' of civil rights law: A timeline of the president's war with the university
The Trump administration on Monday accused Harvard of being in 'violent violation' of federal civil rights laws by allegedly failing to stop antisemitism on its campus. In a letter sent to the university, the administration's Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism threatened to cut off 'all federal financial resources' if Harvard doesn't 'institute adequate changes immediately.' The move marked the latest escalation in the ongoing back-and-forth between the president and Harvard, which has come under a barrage of attacks in the months since President Trump returned to office. The administration has already taken away billions of dollars in federal research grants, attempted to revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status and tried to block the school from hosting international students. Since returning to office, Trump has mounted a sweeping campaign to impose his ideological worldview on some of the country's most prominent universities, revoking hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding from schools like Columbia, Princeton and the University of Pennsylvania. But no college has faced the kinds of attacks that Harvard has. Harvard has not responded publicly to Monday's letter, but its president, Alan M. Garber, has previously condemned the administration's 'unlawful and unwarranted' actions. The university has reportedly been negotiating a possible settlement with the administration that would potentially offer the school some relief in exchange for accepting some of the administration's terms for how it should reshape its internal policies. Trump expressed confidence that the two sides could strike a deal in a post on Truth Social earlier this month, writing that Harvard had acted 'extremely appropriately' during their discussions and that the terms of the agreement would be ''mindbogglingly' HISTORIC' if it is finalized. It's unclear how Monday's action by the administration might affect those ongoing negotiations. Here's a timeline of the most aggressive actions the Trump administration has taken against Harvard and how the school has responded. March 31: The administration's Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism announces it will conduct a 'comprehensive review' of nearly $9 billion in contracts and grants that Harvard is slated to receive from the federal government over the school's alleged 'failure to protect students on campus from anti-Semitic discrimination.' April 11: The administration sends Harvard a letter containing a wide-ranging slate of demands, including calling for the school to reform its admissions and hiring policies, end its diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) practices, and grant the government extensive new authority over university operations and education. April 14: Harvard announces that it is refusing to comply with those demands, insisting that it would not 'surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.' The administration responds by revoking $2.2 billion in federal research grants. April 16: DHS launches an investigation into Harvard's international student enrollment, threatens to revoke its ability to host them and demands that the university share comprehensive internal information about each foreign student with the administration. April 17: The Department of Education announces an investigation into donations Harvard has received from foreign sources, accusing the university of failing to accurately disclose the money it gets from overseas. April 19: The Department of Health and Human Services announces a comprehensive civil rights investigation into all activities on Harvard's campus since the Hamas attacks on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, in order to determine whether the school is violating federal antidiscrimination laws. April 20: The administration reportedly moves to revoke an additional $1 billion in health research funding for Harvard and its research partners. April 21: Harvard sues to block the funding freeze. The lawsuit condemns the 'broad attack' on the university and argues that the administration broke the law by violating the school's 'academic independence.' April 25: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announces an investigation into Harvard's hiring practices, accusing the school of discriminating against 'white, Asian, male, or straight employees, applicants, and training program participants.' April 28: The Education Department and HHS announce a joint investigation into allegations of 'race-based discrimination' in the operations of the Harvard Law Review. May 2: Trump says that he is revoking Harvard's tax-exempt status. It's unclear whether this will actually happen, however, because federal law explicitly bars presidents from directing the Internal Revenue Service to review or change any taxpayer's or institution's tax status. May 5: The Education Department declares that Harvard is disqualified from receiving any federal grant funding in the future. May 12: Harvard releases a letter in which it acknowledges 'common ground' it shares with the administration and expresses hope that its 'partnership' with the government can be restored. That same day, the Justice Department launches an investigation into whether Harvard's admissions practices violate antidiscrimination laws. May 13: The administration's joint task force revokes an additional $450 million in grant funding over claims that Harvard has 'repeatedly failed to confront the pervasive race discrimination and anti-Semitic harassment plaguing its campus.' May 19: Another $60 million in medical research grant funding is canceled by HHS. May 22: DHS announces that Harvard can no longer host international students. May 23: Harvard sues to block the order. A federal judge temporarily rules in Harvard's favor, preventing the order from going into effect for at least two weeks to allow a more thorough legal challenge to get underway. May 27: The Trump administration orders all federal agencies to end any remaining contracts — totaling an estimated $100 million — they have with Harvard. May 29: The Trump administration issues a letter pausing its revocation of Harvard's ability to host international students for 30 days. A federal judge extends the deadline on the previous order that temporarily blocks the policy from going into effect. June 23: A federal judge issues an order indefinitely blocking the administration from revoking Harvard's right to host international students. June 27: Harvard reaches an agreement with the University of Toronto that will allow certain Harvard graduate students to attend the Canadian university if the administration succeeds in preventing them from attending college in the United States. June 30: The administration's antisemitism task force formally accuses Harvard of violating civil rights law and threatens to revoke all federal funding over the school's purported failure to protect Jewish students on campus. A letter from the task force accuses the university of being 'deliberately indifferent' to antisemitism in some cases and a 'willful participant' in attacks on Jewish people.
Time of India
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Time of India
What the Harvard investigation means for the future of diversity in US higher education
A new congressional investigation into Harvard University's faculty hiring practices is drawing national attention—and raising questions about the future of diversity efforts in US higher education. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now With President Donald Trump leading a broader political campaign against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies, the Harvard case could be a turning point for how universities approach hiring across the country. Recently, nine Republican members of the US House Committee on Education and the Workforce sent a letter to Harvard President Alan M. Garber, alleging that the university may be violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act by considering race and gender in its hiring decisions. As reported by the Harvard Crimson , lawmakers demanded documents and internal policies that relate to hiring practices, with a deadline of June 25, 2025. Focus on race and gender in hiring under legal scrutiny The investigation was triggered in part by leaked internal documents, published by conservative activist Christopher F. Rufo. These materials included a 2023 Harvard guide that encouraged faculty search committees to "consider reading the applications of women and minorities first" and give such candidates a "second look," especially when placement goals were in place. As noted by the Harvard Crimson , the guide also recommended monitoring racial and gender diversity in applicant pools. The letter also cited interview prompts reportedly used by Harvard since 2021. Candidates were asked to define diversity, explain its role in their careers, and describe challenges in diverse environments. As quoted by the Harvard Crimson , lawmakers said these practices raise serious concerns under Title VII, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race or sex. A national precedent for other universities Higher education experts believe the investigation could set a precedent that pressures other US universities to revise or roll back DEI-related hiring practices. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now Following a Title VII complaint filed by Andrea R. Lucas, acting chair of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Harvard Medical School removed several diversity-focused programs and quietly deleted a public pledge on inclusive hiring. The timing of the probe also follows the US Supreme Court's 2023 decision ending race-based affirmative action in college admissions. While that ruling focused on Title VI, the Republican lawmakers argued—according to the Harvard Crimson —that "the principle of equal treatment under the law certainly applies to Title VII as well." More scrutiny likely as politics meets policy With multiple investigations already underway into Harvard's conduct, including probes into campus antisemitism and research ties with China, lawmakers appear poised to increase pressure on elite institutions. As the Harvard Crimson noted, this marks the reemergence of the House Education and the Workforce Committee as a powerful force in congressional oversight. For many in academia, the Harvard investigation is not just about one university—it may be a signal of shifting legal standards and political realities for higher education across the US.
New York Times
29-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Trump Administration Live Updates: President Gives Clemency to 25 People, Including His Political Allies
Part of Harvard University's campus seen in the distance in Cambridge, Mass. In public statements and social media posts, President Trump has threatened Harvard University financially, calling it a 'threat to democracy' and referring to its professors as 'birdbrains.' Now, Harvard lawyers are trying to use the president's words against him in their legal fight against his administration. On Thursday, Harvard and Trump administration attorneys will make their first in-person arguments in a Boston federal courtroom, in a case involving the administration's attempt to ban the university from enrolling international students. The Trump administration has argued that Harvard has given up the right to host international students on campus, citing what it says are civil rights violations, including allowing antisemitic behavior. The university's president, Alan M. Garber, has acknowledged some problems with antisemitism but points to major steps he has taken to address it. In the courtroom, Harvard's strategy will use the president's statements as evidence that the government is on a political crusade against the school. In briefs filed in the case, lawyers have argued Trump administration officials have unjustly singled out the university for punishment, violating its First Amendment rights. It has included the president's aggressive comments as exhibits in its case. David A. Super, a professor at Georgetown Law, says Harvard's strategy — pointing to the president's posts on his social media network, Truth Social — could work. 'The Truth Social posts prove a deep hostility to Harvard, and Harvard believes they also suggest that hostility is based on Harvard's exercise of its First Amendment activity,' Mr. Super said. 'So these quotes help Harvard prove its particular claims.' Image A rally in support of international students on Tuesday at Harvard University. Credit... Lucy Lu for The New York Times At stake is a 70-year-old Harvard tradition of admitting top students from around the globe. Its notable international alumni include Benazir Bhutto, the former prime minister of Pakistan; Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, the former president of Liberia; and Masako Owada, the empress of Japan. A visa ban would affect 7,000 students at Harvard. That includes 5,000 current students and another 2,000 in a program that allows students to stay and work for up to three years after they graduate. The ban also affects incoming students who had expected to arrive this summer and fall. Kirsten Weld, a Harvard professor who heads the school's chapter of the American Association of University Professors, called such a ban 'an extinction-level event.' It could also have implications beyond Harvard — further deterring international interest in studying in the United States, already ebbing following efforts by the administration this year aimed at deporting international students. Last week, a day after the administration imposed the ban, it was temporarily blocked by Judge Allison D. Burroughs, who will preside over Thursday's hearing. Lawyers for Harvard are asking Judge Burroughs to extend that order by issuing a preliminary injunction while the case moves through the court system. Justice Department lawyers have not submitted any written arguments in the case. But in revoking Harvard's right to host international students last week, Kristi Noem, the Homeland Security secretary, said the school had fostered violence and antisemitism and accused it of 'coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus.' She also pointed to Harvard's ideology and what she called its propaganda, which she described as 'anti-American.' Jewish students had complained that Harvard had failed to combat antisemitic behavior on campus, including during pro-Palestinian protests that began in 2023. In response, Harvard commissioned an internal task force report, settled legal cases with Jewish students and created new programs to address bias. The basis for Ms. Noem's claims involving collaboration with Chinese Communists were not entirely clear. The ban followed an extended back and forth between Harvard and the federal government. In April, the Trump administration sent a request for information about the school's international students, including the names of students who had been disciplined. Later, it expanded those demands, asking for footage of international students involved in demonstrations. Harvard has said that it made efforts to provide some of the information, though it argued the requests were well outside the normal documentation required about international students. Trump administration officials were unsatisfied, however, and Ms. Noem blamed the university's failure to comply with reporting requirements when she announced the ban. Revoking a university's right to host international students, which is done through a federal system known as the Student and Exchange Visitor Program, is an extraordinary measure. The government has historically done so in cases involving fraud — such as diploma mills that host would-be immigrants under the guise of providing them an education. In court papers, lawyers for Harvard said the administration bypassed detailed procedures leading to a revocation that are clearly laid out in federal regulations. They also argue that the order last week was part of a 'broader effort to retaliate against Harvard for its refusal to surrender its academic independence.' Even before he was elected to a second term, Mr. Trump had criticized Harvard and other top universities. In a video posted during the campaign, he invoked Harvard while announcing a plan to tax university endowments and use the money to create a free online university called the American Academy. Details of that proposal have not materialized. Ahead of Thursday's hearing, lawyers for Harvard specifically cited four of the president's posts on Truth Social, dated from April 15 to May 2, as evidence that his decision to revoke Harvard's right to host international students was retaliation for the university's failure to acquiesce to the administration's earlier demands. They include a threat that Harvard should lose its tax-exempt status, a claim that Harvard's professors were 'Radical left, idiots and birdbrains,' and an assertion that Harvard was a 'Far Left Institution.' In a statement to reporters on Wednesday, Mr. Trump repeated a demand that Harvard show the administration its list of international students — information the government, which issues visas, keeps in its own database. He also said that the Ivy League should cap the international students it admits to 15 percent, introducing a new spin into the administration's position. Currently, Harvard's student body is about 27 percent international. 'Harvard has got to behave themselves. Harvard is treating our country with great disrespect and all they're doing is getting in deeper and deeper,' Trump told reporters gathered at the White House. Ms. Noem's announcement was the most recent action in a series of administration assaults on Harvard that began this year and came to a head last month, when Harvard refused to go along with a series of administration demands, including a ban on admitting students 'hostile to the American values,' an audit of the political ideology of the student body and faculty to determine 'viewpoint diversity,' and quarterly status updates from the school. Columbia University had acceded to a list of demands when threatened by the Trump administration. When Harvard refused, government officials said they would freeze $2.2 billion in federal research contracts and grants with the university. Harvard filed the first of its two lawsuits, also pending before Judge Burroughs, challenging those funding cuts. The government has since announced additional funding cuts. It is not the first time a Trump administration target is using the president's comments to build a case against his government. In May, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell deemed unconstitutional an executive order stripping privileges, including federal building access and security clearance, from the law firm Perkins Coie. In her order siding with the law firm, Judge Howell repeatedly referenced Mr. Trump's statements on Truth Social as evidence that the firm, known for its work for Democratic candidates in voting rights cases, had been a victim of the president's 'ire.'
